Comments on: Dr. Richard Dawkins’ Controversial “The God Delusion” Speech

By: E. Smith

E. Smith — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 19:51:07 +0000

Science has its gaps and inconsistencies. Scientists once held to the “steady state” theory that the universe has always existed without a beginning. Now they are steady on the “Big Bang theory” which clearly has a beginning. Everything we observe in nature has a beginning. God is different and is in a different category and different from all nature and humanity in that He has always existed (just as scientist believed once that the universe always existed). God is exactly as the Bible describes Him – self-sufficient and self existent. Our universe has not always existed. As Aristotle cogently argued, there must be a reality that causes but in itself is uncaused because if there is an infinite regresssion of causes, then by definition the whole process has no beginning. So God was created by God to the second power who was created by God to the third power and so on.. So it is actually science that proves His existence through their same old theory of the of the universe.. through an infinite regression of causes.

There is more than sufficient evidence of His existence..Just think… The size of the earth is Perfect! If it were smaller, it’s atmosphere would be impossible as it holds a thing layer of just the right amount of nitrogen and oxygen gasses only extending about 50 miles above the Earth’s surface. If the earth were any closer to the sun, we would burn, any closer, we would freeze. The characteristics of water are uniquely suited for life.. the human brain, the uniform lawas of nature, the DNA codes that program a cell’s behavior… and the list goes on. All of this did not happen by chance. If non believers, as I once was, would seek Him, they might be in for a very pleasant surprise. I did when I started having doubts and my life is a completely different one from the one I lived as an atheist. I have never felt so much love and peace.. because I was lacking God in my life and that is just was He is all about.. Indescribable Love and Peace.

God Bless

By: kylie

kylie — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:28:26 +0000

I actually thought many arguments in “the God Delusion” were quite weak. Grateful for your comments on my counter-position, as posted at http://kylierandomthoughts.blogspot.com/ .

By: Don

Don — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:14:35 +0000

I just started to read “The God Delusion”. The first chapter spent the majority of its time on helping us understand what Einstein’s beliefs were about God. I look for the reference sources for the quotes which Richard Dawkins used in regard to Einstein but could find any. Is there a reference source list for these quotes?

Thanks Don

By: Joram

Joram — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:30:02 +0000

I totally agree with you, hthth. A strange danger to myself is someone else’s intend to become what-ever ‘expert’ on, ‘owner’ of, what my fate is, & if you thus think there’s anything though difficult to be
done about it, it’s an issue, you’re as of now please quite welcome to take up with me, so that I can more easily than up till now of course tell you & e.g. help myself etc. become whatever symbol(s) of, what A Fate is: to be continued, greet’s.

By: April

April — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 02:50:16 +0000

I would love to see Mr. Dawkins in person, I envy you so much!

His books are banned in my house, and those of other members of my family, under the label “Satanic”, which has also been applied to me at times because I draw in lead and charcoal and I’ve been an atheist for as long as I can remember! (I remember being a six-year-old telling my mother that Daddy couldn’t be in heaven because God probably doesn’t exist and he’s dead, not sleeping.)

Mr. Dawkins has an excellent sense of humour, and I like his arguments, because though they can be easily countered, they can’t be countered with a decent argument.

I came first in the year in

By: hthth

hthth — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 01:35:11 +0000

Moreover, Karl, do you not see anything strange in hiring a court judge to interprete scientific evidence?

By: John P.

John P. — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 01:23:38 +0000

That site is clearly a joke Karl.

More than 363,000 evolutionists, by individual or organization invitation, cannot be coaxed to reveal their scientific evidence even for $10,000 on a continuing basis.

Of course not. $10,000 is not even worth the time or energy it would take to litigate anything. It’s chicken scratch.

So claiming that 363,000 people who have ignored the “challenge” are not up to it is as stupid as my saying that 298 supermodels who have not had sex with me didn’t do it because they are scared that I’ll be far too much man for them.

Now, if we up the amount to $10,000,000 and firm up the rules a bit I’d take that challenge.

John

By: Karl Priest

Karl Priest — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:16:44 +0000

Evolution is more impossible than the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Headless Horseman. See
http://www.lifescienceprize.org/ for a list of bluffing evolutionists like Richard Dawkins.

By: The Man

The Man — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 23:18:25 +0000

That is a VERY interesting quote. And I beleive he is correct in a couple of ways:

1 – Although he is very against religion I’ve never heard him say that people should be forced to stop believing in God.
2 – Believers often do expect a free pass. Anything that remotely challenges the existence of God is met with almost disbelief, then harsh criticism of non-believers ensues.

Of course, there are athiests who are just as radical as believers, so while this comment holds true for Dr. Dawkins it cannot be generalized.

It’s very cool that you got to see him in person, even if you didn’t like him much.

John

By: hthth

hthth — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:32:01 +0000

I had a debate recently online, which came about because it was stated that ‘religion didn’t make for good arguments’. It was actually a really interesting debate, and showed quite clearly the difference between science/logic/reason and religion.

I attended a conference with Richard Dawkins a few months ago. Wasn’t very impressed with him at the time, nor was I certain of his methods for spreading science. But with the increasing pressure from certain groups to bring ‘intelligent design’ into schools and the aggressive (and often rediculous) attacks on science, I’ve started to think science needs actions like Dawkins’. The following quote of Dawkins I charish as one of his best; it’s an answer to the question “What is there to distinguish your intolerance from that of a religious fanatic?”:

It would be intolerant if I advocated the banning of religion, but of course I never have. I merely give robust expression to views about the cosmos and morality with which you happen to disagree. You interpret that as ‘intolerance’ because of the weirdly privileged status of religion, which expects to get a free ride and not have to defend itself. If I wrote a book called The Socialist Delusion or The Monetarist Delusion, you would never use a word like intolerance. But The God Delusion sounds automatically intolerant. Why? What’s the difference?

I have a (you might say fanatical) desire for people to use their own minds and make their own choices, based upon publicly available evidence. Religious fanatics want people to switch off their own minds, ignore the evidence, and blindly follow a holy book based upon private ‘revelation’. There is a huge difference.”